Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

[SecularMotion]

Source: CBS

ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.

It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.

Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license.

"We certainly take this as a credible threat, and credible until we prove otherwise,” said Arlington police Captain Robert Bongiorno.

Read more: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/01/18/arlington-man-loses-gun-license-due-to-blog-about-tucson-shooting/

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Good. eom

[live love laugh]

123. but but but...this violates his "2nd amendment rights"...?!!?!

:sarcasm:

[TheWraith]

161. Thank you for that lovely strawman argument.

However, I'd like you to present evidence that any serious number of people are making that argument, any more than people are arguing that the first amendment freedom of religion guarantees the right to shout fire in a theater.

[cowcommander]

2. Why does Massachusetts still require a license for gun ownership?

Kinda makes the 2nd Amendment completely pointless, doesn't it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Um, no.

:eyes:

[baldguy]

57. Because they're sane.

[stranger81]

67. Answer me this: what do you think the phrase "well-regulated militia" means,

if anything?

[beevul]

99. I'll make a go of it.

The bill of rights is a restriction on government power.

It says so here in the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

The framers decided, that to prevent the government from misconstruing or abusing its powers, that declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. They decided that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia - one composed of the body of the people, is necessary to the security of a free state.,


Keep in mind, if you're making the "well regulated militia" argument, that your reading a restriction on people, into what is clearly and unequivocally a restriction on government.

[rgbecker]

124. Funny my copy reads the other way around.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (because) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sounds to me like they mean we need the police to keep us safe from the wackos with the Arms...apparently for bears.

[beevul]

128. Do post the text of "your copy". I'd love to read it.

All of it.

[stranger81]

148. Yes and no.

>>The bill of rights is a restriction on government power.<<

Fair enough. I will grant you this. But the restrictions aren't absolute; they're governed by the scope of the language of each Amendment.

>>The framers decided . . . . that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia - one composed of the body of the people, is necessary to the security of a free state.<<

Yes, exactly. The Framers decided that " well-regulated militia" being necessary, the right of the "people" -- a collective pronoun, not an individual pronoun -- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Framers certainly knew how to clearly indicate a right was individual -- they used the individual pronoun "person" or similar language denoting an individual, as in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. When discussing rights meant to be collective -- the right to assembly in the 1st Amendment, for instance, and the right to bear arms in the 2nd -- they used the distinct term "people" to give the restriction a different scope. Even you concede that a "well-regulated militia" is comprised of a "body of [] people," not some asshat open-carrying his .32 in your local Starbucks.

>>Keep in mind, if you're making the "well regulated militia" argument, that your reading a restriction on people, into what is clearly and unequivocally a restriction on government.<<

Yes, exactly. "People" is a collective pronoun. It was used for a reason.

[beevul]

164. You can not have "people" without individuals.

Furthermore, if you're arguing "collective" rights, you are wrong in numerous ways.

The first ten amendments mention "people" other places where a protected right is obviously not "collective only". Precedent disproves the "collective" argument completely.

Second, "a restriction on government, because X", does not limit the restriction on government. Sorry, it simply does not.

The government is generally restricted from infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, BECAUSE a well regulated (equipped) militia, one composed of the body of the people who are required to bring their own arms, is necessary to the security of a free state.

The restriction on government is BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The framers are declaring why the government is restricted from doing so, rather than under what conditions. The supreme court agrees.

Thats your mistake. You see conditions where none exist.

[Towlie]

149. So where's this militia? I don't see it.

They decided that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia - one composed of the body of the people, is necessary to the security of a free state.

Isn't it strange that this is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that includes an excuse for its existence? All of the other amendments simply state their restrictions and leave it at that.

So if the reason for the Second Amendment is the need for a well regulated militia, where is this militia? I don't see it. Why is it that we honor a provision for the right to bear arms because of the need for a militia, but we don't even bother to form the militia?

Makes no sense.

[beevul]

166. You don't have to.

"Isn't it strange that this is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that includes an excuse for its existence? All of the other amendments simply state their restrictions and leave it at that."

Such language structure is not unheard of, if one is interested in looking for it:

Rhode Island Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

"So if the reason for the Second Amendment is the need for a well regulated militia, where is this militia? I don't see it. Why is it that we honor a provision for the right to bear arms because of the need for a militia, but we don't even bother to form the militia?"


We have, you just didn't know:

The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.<1> The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Types of militia within modern US:

US CODE

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.<2> The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia<3> or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Thats wikipedia, and if you really don't trust it, you can look up US code yourself.

[JDPriestly]

151. Well regulated militia

well -- There is quite a list of definitions of well as an adverb. Here are a few that fit:

a : with skill or aptitude : expertly, excellently <paints well>
b : satisfactorily <the plan worked well>
c : with good appearance or effect : elegantly <carried himself well>
4
: with careful or close attention : attentively <watch well what I do>
5
: to a high degree <well deserved the honor> <a well-equipped kitchen> —often used as an intensifier or qualifier <there are … vacancies pretty well all the time — Listener>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well
1
: to control or direct according to rule or law <regulate the testing of experimental drugs>
2
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/regulated

militia

Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

We call our well regulated militia -- the National Reserves.

[tomp]

174. do National Reservists bring their own weapons? nt

[JDPriestly]

176. No. I suppose some of them have guns at home.

I'm not a gun nut. Nor am I categorically opposed to guns.

But words say what they say. "a well regulated militia" is not just a bunch of guys with guns who happen to hang out at the shooting range on Saturday afternoon. Whether they bring their own guns is not so important as long as they are following good regulations, presumably issued by a government under the US Constitution.

Washington's army was a well regulated militia. As is our present National Guard.

[bongbong]

196. Exactly

You have the right idea about what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

[tomp]

213. seems like you missed my point.

if the national guard is the well-regulated militia, and they supply the guns, then how do we square private ownership?

[PavePusher]

222. Not quite.

The NG is under Federal authority, removing it from the "militia" catagory.

And you might want to look up what Washington thought of the militias. Note that it took some years for him to organise an army that could go face-to-face with British troops and have a chance of success.


Also note, that I do not disparage militia in toto. When well-trained they can be marvelously effective for certain tactics and strategies, or local disaster aid. I think it is a concept that should be re-invigorated by the several states.

[No Elephants]

72. Does a parade permit make meaningless the 1st amendment or the right of peaceful assembly?

All our civil rights are subject to limitations, in part because one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

[beevul]

100. Is one required on ones own property?

Is one required on ones own property?

Like some people would like to see for gun permits?

[No Elephants]

118. Price of tea in China?

[beevul]

121. Great argument.

Err...non-argument.

[No Elephants]

142. It means your question is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

We are discussing constitionally permissible government restrictions on a right specifically grant by said constition, not rights goverment may regulate without violating a specific constitional provision.

But, to answer your irrelevant question, yes, government gets involved in title to property of various kinds.

[beevul]

162. Try and keep up.

I'll dial it back a little to help you.

You originally said "Does a parade permit make meaningless the 1st amendment or the right of peaceful assembly?"

To which I replied "Is one required on ones own property?" I'm asking if a parade permit is required on private property - specifically ones own. With me so far? The answer is wholly relevant. And the answer is NO. One does not need a permit for a parade on ones own property.

Then I said "Like some people would like to see for gun permits?" (specifically on ones own property, I am implying.)

I was asking about a permit being required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms on ones own property. YES, some places will attempt and succeed in requiring one, HOWEVER it IS a constitutionally PROTECTED right were talking about. What we're really talking about, is requiring a LICENSE to exercise a right. The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 <1944> Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

"We are discussing constitionally permissible government restrictions on a right specifically grant by said constition, not rights goverment may regulate without violating a specific constitional provision."

First of all, the constitution does not GRANT rights. It GRANTS power to government. The bill of rights (whether you view it as a separate document or a different part of the same document) PROTECTS rights, through restriction on government exercise of power. AKA speech = "don't go there" (generally but not absolutely, like all protected rights). Still with me?

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, is one such restriction on government exercise of power. If not the government, then whom exactly is "shall not be infringed" applicable to?

The second amendment is in fact a constitutionally protected right. Whether you agree with heller and mcdonald or not, they are the binding law of the land. Thats the way it is.

Now apply to it "requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional" - which is also binding law of the land.

The conclusion is obvious.


You should go back to reading and understanding basic constitutional theory, before arguing further. You demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding, in stating that the constitution GRANTS rights, which is 100% incorrect.

[valerief]

146. So the gun nuts won't live here!!!! nt

[qnr]

152. Gee, good thing they didn't mention aircraft in the Constitution. Imagine the uproar if

someone tried to license pilots.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Should be permanent.

[RamboLiberal]

5. Good for Arlington police! K&R

[Lance_Boyle]

6. WTF is a 'firearms license?'

I didn't think such abominations were Constitutional.

[nyc 4 Biden]

8. WTF! And now I hear you need a barber's license to cut hair!

Unconstitutional!

[Lance_Boyle]

10. I don't recall a second amendment for barbering... n/t

[bongbong]

12. 2nd Amendment?

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment allows laissez-faire gun ownership. Guns are allowed for use in well-regulated militias, which Federalist Papers #29 defines as "trained like an army".

[SteveM]

23. Wrong, there...

The bulk of constitutional scholarship interprets the Second as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. Even Laurence Tribe, the popularizer of the so-called "militia clause," has changed his tune, and sees the Second as protecting an individual right. See also Alan Dershowtiz, no friend of gun ownership, who says if you want to restrict an individual's right to keep and bear arms, you have to repeal the Second. Further, you should know that militia members were required to bring their own weapons when called up; kind of makes the point that individuals must have an arm in order to be in a well-regulated militia.

Few folks outside the NYT and the WaPo think gun-ownership is contingent upon membership in a militia. This militia-dependent "right" argument has been debunked many, many times in this forum and elsewhere.

[bongbong]

32. Appeal to authority

I really don't need to address your "appeal to authority" rhetorical falsehood.

[SteveM]

46. Sounds like you don't have a good argument...

Most folks at least like to look at the body of literature and findings concerning any subject, to get some background on it. Evidently, you consider this "rhetorical falsehood." Such a daring expression as substitute for inquiry.

[bongbong]

48. Nope

What you're doing is called "projection". You're projecting your lack of an argument onto me. The only thing I saw from you is the appeal-to-authority rhetorical trick.

Try again.

[SteveM]

51. No projection; merely a sound description of your "arguments." nt

[bongbong]

187. Still nope

You've offered nothing here except "you're projecting". I've at least shown the reason I feel the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.

Score:
Me: At least 1 argument
SteveM: zero

[Straw Man]

53. Why is citing the Supreme Court...

...considered "appeal to authority" and citing the Constitution is not? We're talking points of law here: it's all "appeal to authority," practically by definition.

[No Elephants]

76. IN THEORY, the SCOTUS tells us what the COTUS "really" means.

And, those decisions bind the entire nation, unless and until the SCOTUS reverses them. While my interpretation of the COTUS is all well and good, it does not have the force of law and binds no one, even me.

[bongbong]

186. Nope

Still nope on all your points.

1) SCOTUS is no more an authority on justice, laws, and the Constitution than an ameoba (other than getting law enforcement to carry out their wishes). The Citizen's United decision showed how little the SCOTUS has to do with the Constitution.

2) Citing the Consititution without understanding the Founding Father's intent and the atmosphere & situation in which they wrote it is foolhardy.

3) You can argue points of logic & history without Appeal To Authority.

Capiche?

[cleanhippie]

55. But that is the exact type of argument you made yourself, an appeal to authority...

[bongbong]

189. Where?

What is my supposed "appeal to authority" argument?

[Taft_Bathtub]

66. Constitutional Historians strongly disagree

An overwhelming number of American historians disagree with an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. You can view their argument in the Amicus Curiae brief they filed in D.C. v. Heller.

At no time were private/individual rights discussed during the debates over the Second Amendment in the House of Representatives, and nearly every single state Constitution that included the right to bear arms includes other language reinforcing the militia clause argument. There simply is not any historical evidence to substantiate a private rights interpretation while the evidence supporting the Founders' trepidation over standing armies is enormous and lengthy.

[stranger81]

68. Welcome to DU, and thanks for bringing some context to this discussion.

Context that was sorely lacking, btw.

[Taft_Bathtub]

71. Thank you!

I have been reading DU since 2005ish but this thread compelled me to finally register. I am writing a paper on this very topic so I had to respond.

[safeinOhio]

83. Welcome aboard.

Hard to find non agenda thoughts on this subject. You may want to develop a strong skin.

[No Elephants]

95. Glad you signed up.

[No Elephants]

78. Bingo.

[X_Digger]

93. Wha huh?

Please tell me that was satire..

Pennsylvania 1790, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont 1777, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky 1792, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware 1792: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama 1819, "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union. Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Here's some of the Heller briefs you should read..

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuOrgsScholarsCrrctingMyths.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuAcafor2ndAmend.pdf

[No Elephants]

96. Only Vermont is even relevant to interpreting the 2nd amendment. AND, note the

drafters of the 2nd amendment chose NOT to follow Vermont's lead.

And no, it wasn't satire. Taft's post was quite accurate and your post does not address his points at all, let alone refute them, let alone render them humorous.

[X_Digger]

106. Are you at all familiar with the debates surrounding the bill of rights?

There were many revisions and changes- they threw out the 'common defense' language, they threw out the 'conscientious objectors' language..

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

These same delegates and writers went right back to their respective state houses and wrote their own versions of the bill of rights into their own state constitutions. Either from scratch, or amending it, as Delaware did (replacing the 1777 version).

It's a direct refutation of..

"nearly every single state Constitution that included the right to bear arms includes other language reinforcing the militia clause argument."

And Samuel Adam's first proposed version (bolded above) refutes the statement, "At no time were private/individual rights discussed during the debates over the Second Amendment in the House of Representatives".

[No Elephants]

110. Yes, I am. Are you, or are you only repeating gun enthusiast talking points?

How about some links to credible sources?

Btw, the Constitution gave the federal government the power to provide for the "common defense?" So, repeating that language in the second amendment would only have messed up interpretation, possibly interfering with state militias.

Many possible reasons for rejecting particular wordings. So, you can rejected phraseology until the cows come home without proving a single thing.

[X_Digger]

113. I actually have..

If you want a good start, hit http://memory.loc.gov and search for bill of rights, or house debate on the bill of rights.

(You get weird URLs from there that don't always paste well at DU, like http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:20 -- eta: crap, it was huge

Many possible reasons for rejecting particular wordings. So, you can rejected phraseology until the cows come home without proving a single thing.

Actually, it does- it proves what they were thinking. Nobody argued for a 'collective' right- you have to insinuate it, rather than being able to point to someone who said it.

[No Elephants]

138. You have what? And, no, it doesn't prove what they were thinking

(as if every person had a single thought anyway).

It proves only what language a majority voted out. It does not tell us the reason it was rejected.

btw, I defy you to prove for a fact what anyone was thinking, ever. Even if that person tells you and swears to it, he or she may be lying.

[X_Digger]

143. Previous versions, and state constitutions both lend to what was on their minds.

You have to try snatch this 'collective' bullshit based on what they didn't say.

I can say 'look at the previous revision, check out state constitutions written at the same time, look at the preamble to the bill of rights..'

You have a much harder row to hoe.


eta: You asked "Are you, or are you only repeating gun enthusiast talking points?" -- that's what my "I actually have" was in response to. I'll try to type slower next time.

[No Elephants]

154. MAYBE state constitutions bear on what the Framers intended, but

the Virginia constitution and English law are probably far more likely candidates than the Rhode Island constitution.

Moreover, a provision on freedom of the press does not bear on a federal right to bear arms. And, even if it did, my point to you was, you have no clue about the meaning of the provision you quoted. (Or, if you do, you have not demonstrated you do.0 And i told you exactly why in my prior post.


"You have to try snatch this 'collective' bullshit based on what they didn't say."

Your remark about 'collective' bullshit should probably be addressed to the poster who raised that point. It has not been part of my discussion with you.

However, I probably disagree with you, though I have no interest in debating the point: How "The people" IS used in all other parts of the COTUS is much more relevant to what the same term means in the 2nd amend. than what the Rhode Island constitution as to freedom of the press doesn't say about a "non-press" individual's right to speak.

[Taft_Bathtub]

153. Lots of these are after the Constitution was passed

KY, DE, AL, AZ, WA are all irrelevant because they came after the Constitution passed.

Delaware's Bill of Rights 1776 does not mention arms at all:

Sect. 18. That a well regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

Pennsylvania's is the only one I've read that historians quarrel over:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

First, Article XIII clearly deals with military functions, the fears of standing armies, civilian authority over the army, etc.

Individual Rights proponents do point to PA's use of "defense of themselves and the State" as supporting an individual right to own firearms. However, historians argue that the passage reflected PA's lack of a militia since the mid-1750s when pacifist Quakers with religious scruples prevented the state from ever forming a militia, even during the Seven Years War, numerous Indian attacks, and the American Revolution. PA experienced a lot of bloodshed and lacked a militia to respond.

Historian Nathan Kozuskanich has an article about it: http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/lawjournal/issues/38_4/03KozuskanichVol.38.4.pdf

--

Your Heller briefs are interesting, I'll have to look over them some more, after a quick glance some of them take issue the Brady Campaign's interpretation which I do not care for (they write bad history just like the NRA does).

[X_Digger]

177. Those state constitutions came out one or more years after the 2nd (cept for VT & PA)

These same delegates and writers who wrote the second amendment in 1790/1791 went right back to their respective state houses and wrote their own bill of rights into their constitutions. If their intent in writing the second amendment into the federal constitution were to protect a 'collective' right, why would they write an individual right into their state constitutions? It doesn't make sense.

[beevul]

104. Sheer unabashed nonsense.

"An overwhelming number of American historians disagree with an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. You can view their argument in the Amicus Curiae brief they filed in D.C. v. Heller."

I've read them. The number of historians which disagree, are in no way - neither quantative or qualitative - overwhelimng.


" At no time were private/individual rights discussed during the debates over the Second Amendment in the House of Representatives, and nearly every single state Constitution that included the right to bear arms includes other language reinforcing the militia clause argument. There simply is not any historical evidence to substantiate a private rights interpretation while the evidence supporting the Founders' trepidation over standing armies is enormous and lengthy."

What was debated matters not. What was enacted in the final document is whats relevant.

Speaking of that:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

As the preamble states, the first ten amendments are restrictions on governmental power.

Including amendment 2.

Reading it as a restriction on people, ignores the intent, purpose, and function, which is clearly stated in the preamble.

The preamble wins versus feeble idelogical interpretations. Every time.

[No Elephants]

112. "What was enacted in the final document is whats relevant." Bingo. No preamble to Bill of Rights in

the final document.

[X_Digger]

117. aka, let's ignore what the writers of the document actually SAID..

.. and insert your interpretation instead.

*snort*

How is it that you can argue on one hand, that the intent didn't matter, because it wasn't codified as law, while at the same time arguing that the intent was something different?

Pick a horse, you're going to get wet if you keep changing in mid-stream.

[No Elephants]

160. Please remind me. Where did I argue intent doesn't matter?

Or that we should ignore what a document actually says (when we interpret that document)?

For that matter, where is my interpretation of the 2nd amend. that you claim I want you to insert "instead" (of a preamble to a statute)?


That may have been beevul's argument. Or yours. Or both. However, mine was that no preamble to the bill of rights ever got voted on by states or adopted as a Constitutional provision. Therefore, the Bill of Rights itself has no preamble.

Geez, the straw persons are multiplying like rabbits.

While you're at it, please tell me (specifically) what the preamble to a statute s/he posted proves about gun licenses?

[X_Digger]

179. You've already demonstrated that you think the government 'grants' rights..

therefore, by your (faulty) logic, I can see where you see the bill of rights as defining a limit on people, not the government.

In order to maintain that view, you have to dismiss the preamble-- it directly contradicts the view that you wish to endorse.

The preamble lays out the intent of the bill of rights. Clear, now?

[beevul]

119. Heres a couple photos for your denial.

Saying its not there wont make it go away.

Really.

[No Elephants]

125. LOL, what part of your own statement about "final document" did you not understand?

The Constitution, as voted on and adopted by the states, is the final document. (Duh). It does not contain that language, nor was it ever intended to contain that language.

As I said, you and I have gone around on this more than once. I never denied there was a preamble to a bill of Congress, which is all you ever post proof of.

Besides, explain exactly how what you do post--which is a preamble to a statute proposing the states adopt the Bill of Rights and NOT a preamble to the Bill of Rights--prevents governments from requiring gun licenses. That is after all, the topic of this thread.

[beevul]

127. The document in question, is the bill of rights.

Not the constitution.

While they're sometimes referred to as the same thing, theyre physically separate documents, with distinctly different purposes.

But you know that.

The constitution authorizes and grants powers TO the government.

The bill of rights, forbids.

Again, you know that.


You might as well argue that the bill of rights itself does not exist.


I think I'll rely on the photographic copy of the document itself.

You can say those words aren't there until your vocal cords bleed, but its simply not going to make them disappear.

[No Elephants]

130. NO. Please see my prior post, as edit ed.

[beevul]

132. You can pretend to your hearts content.

Lets say, for sake of argument, that theres no preamble. (Note, I don't subscribe to this particular nonsense)

The document - the bill of rights - functions how it functions. Rights are protected by a mechanism of government being generally forbidden from "going there".

Do you deny that? If you do, then in your view none of the amendments restrict government at all, and protected rights are a fiction, in your view.


If thats what you believe, I challenge you to find and cite any evidence in support.

Lets start there.

Oh edit: The Bill of Rights is the name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.<1> They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of legislative articles. They came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the United States federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution<2> and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. Most of these restrictions on the federal government were later applied to the states by a series of legal decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention on September 12, 1787 debated whether to include a Bill of Rights in the body of the U.S. Constitution, and an agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself.<3> Ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists threatened the final ratification of the new national Constitution. Thus, the Bill addressed the concerns of some of the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the fundamental principles of human liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[No Elephants]

135. Some statements deserve only to be ignored. This is one of them.

"The document in question, is the bill of rights.
Edited on Wed Jan-19-11 11:22 PM by beevul
Not the constitution."

Despite that, I tried a response sound in both fact and law. My bad.

[beevul]

137. In other words, you can not refute my last post.

In other words, you can not refute my last post, which itself was based in fact and law.


Not that I blame you. I wouldn't want to touch it if our roles were reversed, any more than you do.

[No Elephants]

139. LOL!

[Taft_Bathtub]

156. I disagree

I find it hard to believe you read all the historians and so quickly dismiss them. To my knowledge only one historian who supports the 'private right' interpretation is considered valid in the historical realm -- Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Please explain to me why the authors put "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," in the beginning of the Second Amendment, and also explain what "to keep and bear arms" means.

Since you put so much weight on preambles providing an opening justification phrase/qualifying clause to legal rights, you'll have to explain why "A well regulated militia..." functions as a preamble for a law supposedly providing an individual right to bear arms.

[beevul]

216. Disagree all you like. Facts trump your opinion.

"I find it hard to believe you read all the historians and so quickly dismiss them. To my knowledge only one historian who supports the 'private right' interpretation is considered valid in the historical realm -- Joyce Lee Malcolm."

In case you hadn't noticed, heller was two years ago. Nothing QUICK about reading the amici curiae (thats "friend of the court", in plural, in case you aren't aware)and the decision itself. I read all of both.

Did you?

"Please explain to me why the authors put "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," in the beginning of the Second Amendment, and also explain what "to keep and bear arms" means."

Please explain to me why it matters, first.

"Since you put so much weight on preambles providing an opening justification phrase/qualifying clause to legal rights, you'll have to explain why "A well regulated militia..." functions as a preamble for a law supposedly providing an individual right to bear arms."

It is sadddening. Truly and deeply saddening, that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter.

You just demonstrated what I just described, in stating that you think a right is "provided".

Heres a clue, sparky:

The bill of rights does not "grant" "give" "award" "create" or "provide" rights (nor does government). It protects them.

How does it protect them? Care to take a stab?

The answer to that question is the answer to every question you asked in the post that this one responds to.

[bongbong]

190. Yawn

Appeal to Authority. I know of several prominent historians who disagree with it.

[bongbong]

191. Breyer checked it all out

Stephen Breyer, who you might have heard of, checked out all those arguments and decided that the 2nd Amendment had to viewed only as a right to bear arms in well-trained militas.

[X_Digger]

198. Lol.. You claim appeal to authority in post 198, then do it in post 199!!

:crazy:

[bongbong]

200. You can stop laughing now

Yeah, it was intended as semi-sarcasm (semi because so many of the gun nuts seem to love citing "endless historians agree with ME!")

I guess it wasn't obvious since I left out the sarcasm tag, but I would've hoped it was obvious from the fact that they were consecutive-numbered posts. Oh well!

[safeinOhio]

80. Not for the first 200 years

an individual right began in the 1980s with Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 appointees. The same ones that decided corporations are persons. I guess you have to accept that too. This court has not extended gun rights past long guns and handguns in the home. Now that a public figure was the victim, I doubt they will extend it to an individual right in the public square. Like all good conservatives they feed the base, but protect their own asses.

[RantinRavin]

25. Funny

I Don't remember the 2nd saying "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[bongbong]

31. You left part of it out

You left part of the 2nd Amendment out. Common mistake.

[RantinRavin]

35. You are correct

Let's see the whole thing:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Yep, pretty much says it all right there. The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. The writers were smart people. If they intended the right to only apply to the militia, they would have worded it "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But they did not word it that way. But then, that is a common mistake.

[bongbong]

38. Simple grammar error you made

So you left out part of the 2nd Amendment in your first post. SO you established your "credentials" in debate - you'll lie to "win". No problem.

Now you're saying that the phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is just added fluff, since your "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment would be the same as if they left it completely out. I guess the Founding Fathers needed extra verbiage to make an even 3000 words or something.

Don't worry, I've disposed of much better debaters than you on the 2nd Amendment.

[RantinRavin]

41. You did not dispose of them

They were just tired of proving you wrong.

Yet you still have not answered the simple question. Why did they specifically say "People" instead of "militia" ? They knew full well what the militia was, they used the word previously, yet they decided the "People" should be given the right. WHY ?

[bongbong]

42. Try harder questions

They used "people" because people own the guns, not the militia itself.

It looks like you're using the "moving goalposts" method of debate. repigs use that method too.

[safeinOhio]

84. Seems the Founders never intended for

the document to be a gospel.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[X_Digger]

120. So you admit his interpretation is right, but you think it should be changed? n/t

[safeinOhio]

171. I don't think I said that anywhere.

I'm saying the interpretation may change, as it has over the years. For over 200 years there was no individual right to own firearms.

[X_Digger]

180. By saying it may change, you're advocating that it _should_ change..

.. which means you think the current protection is an individual one.

Why else point out that the constitution can be amended? If it were read as a collective right, you wouldn't have to change it (to get the interpretation you want).

:shrug:

[bongbong]

192. Tell it to the repigs

The repig-appointed justices all claim to be originalists on the Constitution. But they're the same ones who mis-interpret the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you bring your quote to their attention.

[X_Digger]

111. "because people own the guns" -- we have a breakthrough! n/t

[No Elephants]

155. Where does the 2nd am. mention gun acquisition or ownership?

And, even if it did, that would not mean requiring a gun license (or a permit) would violate the 2nd amend.

[beevul]

167. Follett vs. Town of McCormick - Established case law.

Follett vs. Town of McCormick - Established case law.

Heller and Mcdonald. Established case law.


The end.

[safeinOhio]

172. Then you feel

the same court that decided Heller and McDonald has decided Citizens United correctly and forever also, The end?
Not according to John Belushi.

[beevul]

173. Not quite.

"Then you feel the same court that decided Heller and McDonald has decided Citizens United correctly and forever also, The end?"

How I feel is not relevant. What court decided them is not relevant.

The facts is that they are established and binding case law.


I don't rely on "what court made the decision". I rely on whether the decision is correct or not. The heller and mcdonald decisions are in line with the preamble to the bill of rights, and in line with the purpose function and intent of the bill of rights.

Thats good enough for me.

If you can make a compelling reasoned argument that either of the two decisions I referred to are wrong, I'm all ears.

Of course, I wont entertain any nonsense thats not in line with the preamble to the bill of rights, and in line with the purpose function and intent of the bill of rights.

Thats my "yardstick".

Whats yours?

[safeinOhio]

175. While I agree with most of the basics

I also think that those cases say nothing about handguns in the public square, only the home. They say nothing about registration of handguns or laws restricting who can possess handguns outside of the home.

My point on those cases is that the law did change after 200 years of gun rights being a collective right, into an individual right and it can change again just as quickly. There is "no end" to it. I feel that Citizen United will change and gun rights will change. How? I have no idea. I think events like a week and a half ago will determine the direction of future laws. I think that reasonable restrictions like registration of handguns and limits on purchase of what and who can possess certain weapons will help keep our rights. Those at the extreme on gun rights that see no restrictions, do more damage to my right to own and carry, as a sane and law abiding citizen than all of the extremist on the other side of the issue. To make the issue an either or issue, it will do just that and jeopardize my current rights.

[beevul]

202. "No new laws" is not the same thing as "No laws".

"My point on those cases is that the law did change after 200 years of gun rights being a collective right, into an individual right and it can change again just as quickly."

It was NEVER a collective right. Nor was it misinterpreted as such for 200 years.

If you dig through case law, you can find court cases that confirm what I say.

"Those at the extreme on gun rights that see no restrictions, do more damage to my right to own and carry, as a sane and law abiding citizen than all of the extremist on the other side of the issue."

Who exactly are those folks? I haven't seen any of them here.

The general consensus among we who are pro-gun on DU, is no NEW laws. No MORE laws.

I certainly hope that doesn't mean "no laws" in your view.

Federal registration of guns is ILLEGAL at the federal level. The firearm owners protection act makes it so.

I find it odd, that you worry more about threats to your own right to carry from people that oppose new laws, than people who have loudly and publicly stated goals ranging from banning handguns to "banning them all", and people who have publicly and loudly stated they see an incrementalist approach as the answer to attaining those goals.

"I also think that those cases say nothing about handguns in the public square, only the home. They say nothing about registration of handguns or laws restricting who can possess handguns outside of the home."

They don't. You are right. Courts generally address "only the questions they are asked".

A future court will be asked those question.

The question is, what decision on those questions, will you support?

[bongbong]

193. Ha HA!

With dissentions in Heller. Since it looks like you consider judged cases "the end", I assume you're fine with the Citizen's United decision, and were heart-broken when Dred Scott was overturned.

[beevul]

204. Ha indeed.

"With dissentions in Heller. Since it looks like you consider judged cases "the end", I assume you're fine with the Citizen's United decision, and were heart-broken when Dred Scott was overturned."

I believe I was arguing with someone over what IS.

You should be able to apply what I said correctly, now.

[bongbong]

206. Oh boy

Do you think the discussions here have any bearing on what the laws are? Sheesh.

[X_Digger]

181. And you accuse others of moving the goal posts??

Keep and Bear.. own and carry.

Please read Heller for the salient definition of 'keep'.

[bongbong]

188. Yes, we do!

As long as they're trained like an army, the Founding Fathers had no problem with gun ownership.

I've told you before to try to read Federalist Paper 29 so you understand what the Founding Fathers wanted on this issue. I guess you didn't.

[X_Digger]

199. As I've asked you before..

Please quote and explain what section of FP 29 backs your interpretation..

expecting..

[bongbong]

201. This part of it supports me

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

[X_Digger]

208. Paste-regurgitation isn't an explanation..

What specific section(s) pertain to the second amendment? Which section makes you think that the right protected by the second pertains only the militia?

Yes, Hamilton wanted a strong federal government in control of the militia, or even a select militia. That is neither here nor there, w/r/t the second amendment. Hamilton argues for a strong federal militia (a "select corps of moderate extent"), not against individual ownership of arms. He was arguing against a more decentralized militia.

He argues, in fact, that this "select corps of moderate extent" should not be feared, for: "but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire", indeed.

[bongbong]

209. You're kidding, right?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The very first sentence includes the phrase "regulating the militia".

How about "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."?

You're just going to accuse me of taking things out of context if I quote some more specifics out of it, that's why I quoted the whole thing. It has to be read in its entirety to understand it.

Now, I understand you are a very devout gun-lover, so nothing I say will change that. I've told you before I don't care if you have 1 or 1,000 guns - just don't use the 2nd Amendment to justify it. There are all kinds of other good points in this thread, like #59 from baldguy. Try to learn from them.

[X_Digger]

210. You are 'assuming the antecedent'..

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AntecedentAssumedFallacy

The argument depends on assuming the truth of part of the argument. An example of CircularReasoning.

I gave you the context of the paper. Hamilton is arguing for a 'select' militia, under strong federal control, rather than the anti-federalists who proposed a weaker-controlled militia.

Yes, the first sentence mentioned regulating the militia--

That has fuck-all to do with the scope of the right protected by the second amendment.



Would you also quote a manual on how to repair a manual transmission as proof that automatic transmissions don't exist?

[bongbong]

211. Give it up

You said in your earlier post:

"Which section makes you think that the right protected by the second pertains only the militia?"

I hope you can read the 2nd Amendment. It states that it is all about a well-regulated militia. You also ignored the point that baldguy brought up, that "people" in the Constitution is used to mean the collective people, since it uses "person" to talk about individual rights. I can see why you ducked that one.

I don't have time to refute the reams of lying rhetoric that the right-wing trots out to defend their gun-love. I don't have time to do it, and more importantly, I really don't care if you have 1 or 1,000 guns. If you need those to feel secure, knock yourself out. Just don't use the 2nd Amendment to justify that love. In spite of the mountains of words that you guys need to defend your love, I just need a few words to show it's wrong - a few words that the Founding Fathers used.

You're ignoring the 900 lb gorilla: if the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to own every gun they could put their hands on, why didn't they just say that in the 2nd Amendment? Why didn't they just leave out the "well-regulated militia" phrase? Then you gun-lovers wouldn't have wasted so many forests printing out endless rationalizations for your love.

[X_Digger]

212. Yes, protecting the ability to raise a militia is WHY they protected the right to keep and bear arms

It doesn't however, limit the scope of the right.

That construction, '{reason}, {statement}' isn't as common today, but we do have contemporaneous examples to look at-

Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.."

Now, you wouldn't say that only the press has the right of free speech, would you? Would you say that the only protected speech is that pertaining to 'the security of freedom in a state'? Of course, not!

The same grammatical construction holds for the second amendment to the US constitution. It is, after all, a limit on government power, not the people.

That's best demonstrated by the preamble-

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document. Agreed? "Congress shall pass no law.."

Now, in the above preamble, who is limited by 'prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers'? The government.

Pretty simple, really.

Now, on to your other red herrings points..

You also ignored the point that baldguy brought up, that "people" in the Constitution is used to mean the collective people, since it uses "person" to talk about individual rights. I can see why you ducked that one.

That's because the courts have interpreted them to be interchangeable for quite some time. The most recent example I'm aware of is US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez

.."the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

There is no legal precedent saying they have any difference.

I just need a few words to show it's wrong - a few words that the Founding Fathers used.

You've presented no argument that leads from A to B. (B being a 'collective' right.) You've paste-barfed a paper by Hamilton where he argues one form of militia control in opposition to another. You haven't connected that to the second amendment, other than both contain the word 'militia'.

As another poster put it some time back, you're trying to 'connect the dot'.

You're ignoring the 900 lb gorilla: if the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to own every gun they could put their hands on, why didn't they just say that in the 2nd Amendment? Why didn't they just leave out the "well-regulated militia" phrase? Then you gun-lovers wouldn't have wasted so many forests printing out endless rationalizations for your love.

That's unsound logic, but let me turn it around- if they wanted a collective right, why didn't they just say, "the right of the militia.."?


eta: One last thing-

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

215. My arguments are my own.. if you find them too complex, perhaps you should study more.

"It doesn't however, limit the scope of the right."

I'm not sure how you made that assertion, but mind-reading or the cherry-picking that pro-gun websites did for you and that you parroted in the next few paragraphs, doesn't prove a thing.

This is a concept rooted in the heart of western democracy- that rights flow not top-down from the government, but from the people up. Hell, it's right there in the Declaration of Independence-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you understand those sentences? Governments are created to protect individuals' ('men' in 18th century vernacular) rights. All government's powers derive from the people ('the governed').

I've given you examples of other court decisions (Cruikshank, Presser) demonstrating this interpretation in practice. Where are your counter-examples?

If the Bill of Rights were the be-all and end-all limit of people's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendment, would there?

"That's because the courts have interpreted them"

Now you're ignoring the fact that all along I've been talking about what the Founding Fathers wanted, not what some courts said. I'm pretty sure that has been REAL clear in all my posts. Thus, you're STILL ignoring that important point. And the excerpt that you copied:

You have provided nothing to support your (borrowed) position that the framers thought of 'the people' as different in practice from 'persons'. Previous drafts of the second amendment had 'citizens' and 'person', as well. There is no commentary to indicate that the two were not analogous- unless you care to provide it?

"the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

actually BACKS UP my (thanks again baldy) point. Do you read the clips that you copy from guncite or any of the other dozens of NRA-sponsored websites that you read?

Perhaps you should read closer, yourself.. "This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons"- individuals. Not 'the state', not 'the government', not 'the militia'. People. A grammatical shorthand for 'a class of persons'.

I guess you must've read it, even though you posted it, since you added "There is no legal precedent saying they have any difference." I bet you checked ever single legal opinion ever rendered on the subject to make that sweeping statement! Am I right?

Found a single one that says differently? I made a claim, backed up by evidence. It's your job (should you choose to accept it) to find something that supports your view.

Finally, you say "That's unsound logic, but let me turn it around- if they wanted a collective right, why didn't they just say, "the right of the militia..". I don't know why they used the sentence construction they did. Maybe (once again, repeating a point I've already made) because the people had the guns. But I'll try to help you understand why you're wrong.

First of all, it's not unsound logic. Your assertion to the opposite is just because you didn't agree with it. It is logically sound. In addition, if it WAS unsound logic, then your counter-"argument" to it would be equally unsound. Thus, you made a big error in logic. I guess all those pro-gun websites with their "unbeatable" arguments don't prepare you for logical inconsistencies in your own "arguments".

I put no credence in your logic, I merely applied your illogic to flip it around. What you did right there, with the 'because the people had the guns'? That's a 'circular cause and consequence' logical fallacy.

Were there ever laws passed in any american period that said that only militia members can own firearms? If their intent was (as you claim) to only provide arms for the militia, why weren't laws passed making it so? Do you think they intended it to be that way, but they just never got around to passing laws making it so?? Codswallop.

Secondly, your counter-"argument" does not have equal weight to my original point. WHY did they mention militias at all if the only purpose for mentioning guns was to allow unlimited (not really, just what the NRA wants) ownership? There is an infinite number of ways to talk about guns without bringing militias into it.

Yes, they mentioned why the right was protected. If I say, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store."-- you wouldn't assume that stores only sell soda, correct? Or that I was only going to buy soda?

Nobody mentioned 'unlimited'-- that's a straw man of your own making.

THIRDLY, your OWN point destroys your OWN "argument"! Here's why. They didn't want unrestricted gun ownership, they wanted it for the service of the well-regulated militia. You were expected to be a part of a well-regulated militia if you owned a gun. That is why they didn't state it in any other way.

You're making a bald assertion with no evidence- "they wanted it for.." -- without substantiation. Your repetition, sans evidence, does not make it so. Now you're getting into the territory of an 'argumenum ad nauseam'.

Of course, gun ownership isn't unlimited - it is limited to what the NRA wants their members to whine about, and what they want to bribe/threaten Congress about.

Nobody said the right is unlimited, any more than the right protected by the first amendment is unlimited. I can no more legally perform a human sacrifice under the auspices of the first amendment than I could legally kill a random person with a firearm under the auspices of the second.

That is a straw man of your own making, if you're asserting that I took that position. The rest? A red herring.

Sorry for all the rofl. Your post made me laugh so hard that I must thank you for lightening up my day. And, as always, even though I am actually arguing against hundreds of websites whenever I engage a gun-lover (because they all just repeat those "airtight" arguments they find there), it is STILL easy to show what the Founding Fathers actually wanted.

I'm running out of time replying to all the websites you use for your arguments. In the future, can you just provide the URL of the argument that you're copying?

My research is my own. I've spent a fair amount of time reading the house debates on the bill of rights, the english bill of rights, early virginia law, various court cases surrounding the second amendment, the fourteenth amendment, historical websites, and books on various topics.

I won't apologize for being more informed than you on the subject. Your ignorance on a particular subject is not my problem to resolve.

[Matariki]

61. Heh. +1

anyone who disparately needs the last word and refers to that as "disposing of" has already lost. :rofl:

[No Elephants]

85. Because people comprised the militia and were used in an emergency, like

the redcoats landing on your shores, something you would not know unless you had someone watching the harbor every minute of the day--and you would not be able to see if night fell. Also, the government might not have the money to buy guns. Washington's army could not even afford to buy shoes in winter.

You ask a question in the 21st century, but the Constitution was first written in the 18th.

Besides, flip your paradigm. If anyone had intended unrestrictable ownership, why preface the right by babbling about a well regulated militia? And why make it a right to "keep and bear" arms, as opposed to what gun lobbies claim--an unrestricted right to buy (or otherwise acquire, own and use for all purposes?

[RantinRavin]

43. I assume you can also explain why your interpretation was soundly defeated

during the Constitutional Convention. The phrase "for the common defense" was attempted to be added to the 2nd amendment. The attempt failed miserably.

[bongbong]

44. Using guncite

I see you're using the guncite site for your talking points. You should probably try to think for yourself. You would think that people with so much love for guns could come up with something to justify that love on their own.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taft_Bathtub]

74. Because the Founders considered it redundant

The Constitution already provided provisions for using the militia/military for common defense in the Enumerated Powers Sec 8:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

In addition, the Constitutional Convention did not address the Amendments, the House and Senate did.

[No Elephants]

134. Yes, the language is in there, but do you know for certain that the Founders

considered it redundant? (Also, the preamble to the Constitution says: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If the 2nd amend used the same language, people my have misinterpreted as to mlitias called up by states, as opposed to congress, the balance between state and federal powers having been THE overarching issue in forming a federal government, from the Articles of Confederation (and, arguably, until FDR's day).

[bongbong]

197. Gun lovers can read dead people's minds

They're also good at redefining what the Founding Fathers wrote down on paper.

[No Elephants]

86. Please give links to evidence of "sound defeat--and alleged defeat of "for the common defense"

is not, in and of itself, that evidence.

[baldguy]

59. "People" is a collective noun.

When the Constitution talks about individuals, it references "persons".

[No Elephants]

87. Nice point! I never thought of that. "We, the people."

[Scruffy1]

136. This is true in all the body of American law

That is why the whole reading of the second amendment by gun wackos is crazy. Not that I bother to argue with them.
Reason doesn't apply to guns. Guns are used in self defense in less than 2 incidents per thousand, including use by police. I have known many police officers who retired never once having fired their gun in police work. The very thought that you need to carry a gun around to pump up your macho is sick. And no I don't live in some nice suburb, but in an inner city neighborhood which has its fair share of crime.

[bongbong]

203. Good one!

I'll remember that for the gun lovers out there.

OT but related: for a while, one of the Talking Points they were ordered to parrot was that "well-regulated" meant "you were good with your gun and could hit a target". Pretty funny to watch them dance to whatever the NRA orders them to do.

[beevul]

217. yeah...you're right.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yeah...you're right. Amendment 4 is a COLLECTIVE right, and does not protect the individual.

What were we thinking. :eyes:

[baldguy]

218. And if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, he can just walk right in.

No warrant is needed, because the "right of the people" collectively to to be protected against warrantless searches is not absolute.

But, when they're looking for individual "persons", they have to name them.

It's only complex when you try to make it say something it doesn't.

[beevul]

219. Whos trying to make it complex?

"But, when they're looking for individual "persons", they have to name them."

Right, because "the people" in amendment 4 includes even the individual.

You made my point for me.

Thanks.

[baldguy]

221. "People" is not equal to "persons"

The only way anyone can pretend to claim otherwise is because a small group of subversives spent several hundred million dollars to buy several worth decades of propaganda to make it seem so.

But they haven't changed the actual words in the Constitution - they can only obfuscate them.

[beevul]

223. Why then does amendment 4 protect the rights of the invididual

Why then does amendment 4 protect the rights of the invididual,if what you say is true, in spite of the words "the people" being used?

You're stuck between truth and a contradiction of your own making here.

Face it. You believe "the people" means something different, should be interpreted and APPLIED differently, than in amendment 4.

And then you unload so much sound and fury signifying it:

"The only way anyone can pretend to claim otherwise is because a small group of subversives spent several hundred million dollars to buy several worth decades of propaganda to make it seem so."

You are trying to have it both ways, and it simply doesn't work that way, no matter how much you wish it did.

The bottom line, is that the second amendment, like the 4th amendment, protect rights. The mechanism through which that is done, is by restriction on government. Not only does the preamble verify this, it also happens to be how the document containing both of them works.

Theres simply no explaining that away, or blaming it on a courts particular leaning.

[baldguy]

224. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

"People" doesn't refer to individuals. "Persons" does. The 4th Amendment protects individual rights of "persons" because it says it does. The 2nd Amendment doesn't.

[beevul]

225. Nice try.

Here, I'll show you how you are wrong.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

"The right of the people" describes what government is restricted from violating or infringing - hence also describes who is protected by that restriction on government. Proof of that, is the words "shall not be violated...". Amendment 4 says "shall not be violated", and amendment 2 says "shall not be infringed". For all intents and purposes, the same thing.

"to be secure in their persons...", just like "to keep and bear arms", describes HOW specifically the government is restricted from interfering with the "right of the people". AKA what the government shall not do. Government is restricted from violating both the rights of the individual AND the rights of a group of individuals. The "right to be secure" belongs to the people. Just as the "right to keep and bear arms" does. Your petty argument that "persons"= individual neglects the fact that "persons" is plural, rather than singular. In fact, when they wrote "persons, houses, papers, and effects", none of it was singular.

That effectively destroys your argument.

There is no collective or individual interpretation, other than those completely fabricated from whole cloth by those with an agenda. They're both restrictions on government. To argue otherwise is to publicly proclaim profound ignorance of the fact enumerated rights are protected, and more specifically how those rights are protected.


Please study up on constitutional theory before you post this nonsense, rather than continuing to argue the absurd and looking the part in the process.

[baldguy]

226. It's like I'm talking to John Cleese at the arguement clinic.

[No Elephants]

79. If I say, "Because your kids are starving, here's five bucks," would you assume

I gave you money for booze or shoes or whatever else you wanted to spend it on?

[X_Digger]

122. "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores only sell soda? n/t

[No Elephants]

140. How about answering my question iinstead of asking an irrelevant one?

[X_Digger]

145. Just as relevant, I'll explain why..

If I say, "Because your kids are starving, here's five bucks," would you assume

I gave you money for booze or shoes or whatever else you wanted to spend it on?

{reason}, {statement}

"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store."

{reason}, {statement}

Neither {reason} limits the {statement}. I can buy booze, I can buy something other than soda.

Here's another one, more in context..

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.."

--Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20

Are only sentiments related to the 'security of freedom in a state' protected?

Are only members of 'the press' protected?


Of course not. The operative clause is that "any person may publish sentiments on any subject". The reason why "any person may publish sentiments on any subject" is to ensure the liberty of the press, which promotes the security of freedom in a state. That reason is why the right is protected. It's the "why"- not the "how much", not the "with what", not the "by whom".

[No Elephants]

147. Still not relevant to why you are given a right (or given anything else).

And still not answering my question.

I feel no need to discuss Rhode Island's constitution re: freedom of the press on a thread about revoking a gun license held by someone who (arguably) threatened to shoot folks.

Besides, you cannot purport to now what a provision of Rhode Island's constitution means unless and until you have read the entire document and know at least some of its history and have also read a good number of Rhode Island cases interpreting that provision.

A knowledge of Rhode Island's rules of construction of legal documents (usually court made) as in effect when Article I, Section 20 of Rhode Island's constitution was drafted (or last amended) would be useful, too.

Well, I guess you literally "can" purport--and you did. But you have no basis so to do--bet your source didn't either (and/or wasn't too fussy about basis) -- and therefore it's not at all persuasive. And, has zero relevance to this thread anyway.

Frankly, the reason I usually stay away from these threads is the excess of scatter-shot copy and paste of stuff people don't really research for themselves and often do not understand and the paucity of relevant facts, well-reasoned arguments.

[beevul]

168. Fail. Nobody is GIVEN a right.

"Frankly, the reason I usually stay away from these threads is the excess of scatter-shot copy and paste of stuff people don't really research for themselves and often do not understand and the paucity of relevant facts, well-reasoned arguments."

And yet here twice in this thread, you refer to rights being "given" or granted.

You really don't have a leg to stand on there.


Pot meet kettle.

[X_Digger]

182. We were discussing a grammatical construct of the time period..

.. as such, other contemporaneous examples are perfectly valid.

Especially when nobody would make the same kind of interpretation you're pushing for in regards to another right protected by the same grammatical construct.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. How do you define the phrase "the people" as it is written in the Second Amendment?

[Taft_Bathtub]

69. A better question is what does Bear Arms mean?

And the answer to that is in a military capacity. Look up writing from the period, you'll find that nearly all of it reinforces this definition. To my limited knowledge, only Thomas Jefferson used the language to "Keep and Bear Arms" in regards to private/personal use (he was discussing hunting rights) but he was out of the country during the writing/debating/passage of the Constitution.

But to answer your question, historians say they were referring to the state governments.

[X_Digger]

126. See Justice Ginsburg's commentary..

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

[Taft_Bathtub]

159. What's interesting is that Ginsburg

dissents along with John Paul Stephens who interpreted bearing arms only in a military capacity in DC v. Heller. You would have to ask her I suppose?

[X_Digger]

183. Yes, she got caught contradicting herself quite well, no?

Funny how that happened.

[No Elephants]

163. And? Btw, was that the majority opinion, a concurring opinion, or a dissenting opinon?

(Or concurring in part and dissenting in part?)

FYI, "in" a case, Justices write opinions, not commentary, and whether they are majority opinions, concurring opinions, or dissenting opinions matters a lot.

I also point out two things: In whatever you quoted, Justice Ginsburg gave no legal or factual analysis or citations whatever. (Saying "surely" does not make something so.) And her remark goes to present, not original, undertanding. ("a most familiar meaning is)

I disagree with her, at least as far as you quoted her.

‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

Can't "keep and bear arms" include keeping arms in a home or other place, or is the right limited to carrying on one's person? And how do the words "keep and bear" tell us the reason for the right?

So, no right to "keep and bear arms" unless the arms are your person for the purpose of being ready for defense or offense? (and being ready for offense is illegal under other laws) Cool.

[X_Digger]

184. keep = own / have.. bear = carry

There hasn't been a SCOTUS case directly addressing the 'bear' portion (yet). Heller & McDonald were both about 'keep' (hence the language about 'in common use, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home'.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Funny thing about the federalist and anti-federalist papers...

they have no force in law.

[No Elephants]

102. No, but they are often looked to, including by federal courts, to tell us what

Constitutional provisions mean. And then a court decision on that issue becomes not merely law, but supreme law. And there is as yet no decision fleshing out the parameters of the second amendment. (Even if there were, it would not, and should not, foreclose discussion and debate,, any more than did Plessy v. Ferguson.)

So, what's your point? That mentioning the Federalist Papers in discussing the original intent (and therefore the original meaning) of the second amendment is somehow inappropriate?

[AtheistCrusader]

129. They are important, no doubt.

But they are polarized ends of a debate, and are not the be-all-end-all definition of words or usage of the time. I think it's fine to refer to them, but more research is required beyond just these documents.

[No Elephants]

150. I never said they were important, For now, I will neither agree nor disagree as to that.

I said--no not said--I implied, only that mentioning them in discussing a Constitional provision to which they relate is probably appropriate, even if they do not have the force of law.

[Scruffy1]

141. To me original intent and astrology have a lot in common

Both are bunkum. The fascists just use "original intent" against parts of the constitution they don't like while astrology is pretty harmless unless you read it as a way of telling people they are powerless over their affairs which helps the rulers maintain control. The whole concept of original intent smacks of armchair psychology.

[bongbong]

195. Another funny thing about those papers

They illustrate much better what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Your "point" is an oxymoron and absolutely meaningless.

[beevul]

101. How about an appeal to the document in question, itself.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

The biull of rights does not authorize, it restricts. Government to be precise.

You, like many others, are reading a restriction on people, into what is clearly and unequivocally a restriction on government.

The preamble to the bill of rights itself refutes such nonsense.

[No Elephants]

105. As I explained at length to you before, there is NO preamble

to the Bill of Rights. Only one way to adopt a Constitutional provision and the preamble was never so adopted. Besides, even if it had been, it does not mean what you (your source) claims, so 0 for 2. Actually, 0 for 3, since this has already been pointed out to you several times and you keep repeating it anyway.

[beevul]

114. First, you must have me confused with another poster.

First, you must have me confused with another poster.

This is the first time I can recall ever being replied to by you.

Second, You are 100 % wrong as to there being no preamble. Heres a photo of the document in question:



Looks like its in there to me. I guess my eyes are lying to me... :eyes: Feel free to post a photo of the original that DOESN'T contain it. Good luck.

Now, you can go ahead and claim it was never "adopted" however, that ignores the FACT that the document itself contains it. So you are wrong. Proven. Demonstrated. Fact.

The claim that it was included in the document itself, but not adopted, is ludicrous on its face, and dishonest to the core.

"Besides, even if it had been, it does not mean what you (your source) claims..."

This is simply nothing more than saying "it doesnt mean what it says", the same thing anti-second amendment types have been doing for ages. My source says nothing about what it means, nor have I relied on them for such.

It means exactly and precisely what it says.


Of course, you're free to demonstrate what YOU think it means.


This ought to be interesting.

If it doesn't mean what it says, what DOES it mean?

[No Elephants]

144. No, beevul. We have had this debate on other threads.. Your failure to

recall = only your failure to recall; and your failure to recall does not = confusion on my part.

"If it doesn't mean what it says, what DOES it mean? "

if I had I said it does not mean what it says, I may have considered responding, no matter how ridiculous the question. As it is, my response is Straw man much?


Bye.

Edited to add quotation marks and fix bolding.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

205. Claiming something has been refuted...

Claiming something has been refuted, when that something has not been refuted, means its just a claim.

[bongbong]

207. Yeah yeah

I know, I know. Nobody disproved anything you said. The guy who said it just has it out for you.

[intheflow]

13. How does needing a license negate the second amendment?

It doesn't prohibit anyone from owning a gun, but it does mandate that anyone purchasing a gun must complete a certified gun safety course. Please demonstrate how this violates the second amendment.

[TheWraith]

15. Such licenses are usually used as a means to insure "undesirables" don't get weapons.

Here in New York, the Sullivan Act--which requires a very elaborate, expensive, and hard to get license and registration for any sort of pistol, even if it never leaves your home--was passed explicitly for the purpose of making sure that immigrants weren't allowed to own weapons. There's even an op-ed from the NY Times talking in extremely xenophobic language about all the evils and malicious conspiracies immigrants bring, and how we need to make sure they're well controlled.

In the south, such licenses were used to prevent black people from arming themselves for self-defense. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a firearms permit after his house was bombed, but he was denied by the white licensing authorities.

In modern times, it's more often used to insure that the friends of the local sheriff get preferential treatment, and people he doesn't like don't get anything at all.

[intheflow]

18. People have to pass background checks to get guns, too.

It seems to me those could be used to keep "undesirables" out of the gun club, too. Do you object to background checks?

[TheWraith]

20. Background checks have a specific set of public criteria to pass.

Felonies, mental illness, violent misdemeanors, drug addiction, etcetera. But there is a specific, assigned set of criteria for passing them that has nothing to do with your skin color, where you come from, or whether you supported the sheriff for reelection last year.

In "may issue" licensing, the standards are completely arbitrary, chosen by one person without appeal or justification, and often varying wildly from one county to another.

[intheflow]

22. And required permits?

I see many states require those for at least hand guns. How are they different from licenses?

[TheWraith]

28. They're not, really.

Call it what you will, the idea is generally the same.

And it depends on what you call "many" states. NY, IL, CA, and MA are the ones I can think of that do. Most states don't require any kind of license or permit for a weapon if you're not carrying it in public.

[intheflow]

54. Not for all handguns,

but permits are at least required for concealed weapons in many states.

Hey, I want to thank you for being such a reasoned voice and explaining this all to me so calmly and rationally. I usually steer clear of gun threads because most of DU seems to have have the lost the ability to discuss this issue with any civility.

My own views are pretty moderate on the subject - I approve of guns for hunting and maybe personal protection, but growing up in an urban area I really would like to see automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons banned. In my opinion, the Second Amendment has become moot since it doesn't matter how many guns an individual or community amasses, The government has far more fire power than you and can hold you under siege for forever, or blast you with napalm from the air/knock down your compound with tanks/etc. It's not like when the Constitution was drafted and everyone from the British Army on down had mostly the same caliber of weaponry. Nowadays if the federal government comes shooting for you, they're going to get you even if you put up a fight. This is one of the prime reasons I'm an advocate of civil disobedience over armed resistance movements.

[pnorman]

60. Thanksfor that clear and well reasoned discussion!

n/t

[sharesunited]

70. You're saying the 2A is obsolete. And you're so right!

The Civil War and today's disparity of weaponry are two reasons why.

[TheWraith]

98. Concealed carry permits are a much different subject than licensing for any guns.

I prefer to use a car analogy: you don't need any sort of official paperwork or certification in order to buy a car, own it, and drive it--as long as you don't drive it on public roads. But to take it out in public, you need safety training. I don't find the requirement of a permit for concealed carry to be unreasonable so long as the requirements are based on reason. My preferred outline would be, say, a written test on familiarity with safe handgun handling and self-defense laws, followed by a range test--you need to demonstrate the ability to safely load, fire, make safe, and clear a pistol to the satisfaction of a range safety officer. If you don't know enough to pass the two tests, you can get a class. But the systems that some states have like NY, where you need to wait months on end and pay hundreds of dollars whether you're approved or not, just to get permission to keep a gun in your home, is unreasonable. Some states like Massachusetts, California, and Illinois even extend mandatory licensing to ALL firearms, not just handguns.

As far as what you describe as your views--despite what Hollywood would teach you, automatic weapons are almost non-existent in the US. They've been strongly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, requiring a very hard background check. They're also collector's items, meaning that they're incredibly expensive to buy legally (think $8,000 to $50,000 depending on the model), and illegal ones are extremely rare.

It's hard to justify banning semi-automatic weapons, since they operate the same way as non-semi-automatic weapons: one trigger pull fires one bullet. They're really no more dangerous than "traditional" hunting weapons, and you have to understand you'd be banning the vast majority of all weapons sold today. Semi-autos have been standard technology for more than a hundred years--one of the most popular semi-auto pistols in history is the Colt model of 1911. Today, all the most popular hunting rifles are semi-automatics.

Despite the rhetoric which has grown up around it, the purpose of the second amendment was never intended to be an "overthrow the government" button. The purpose was to provide for national defense when we couldn't pay for (and didn't trust) a standing army. Frankly I think we'd all be better off if we returned to a civilian militia type system, the same as Switzerland uses. There, much of the population is in the reserve army, where they're issued fully-automatic military weapons to take home with them. I think that the US would be more reluctant to go to war if people had to be pulled out of their ordinary civilian lives, instead of having hundreds of thousands of 24/7 soldiers who no one sees.

[No Elephants]

109. So, the only point of the 2nd amendment was outshooting the federal government

formed only a short time earlier? (When the 2nd amend. was drafted, the British Army was our enemy, not our government). If not, why does our own government' ability to overpower us moot the 2nd amendment?

Does our government's greater ability to get out its message moot individual free speech?

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Most states don't

Most states don't require licensing for ownership of any kind of firearm. Only if you want a concealed carry permit do you need papework.

[RantinRavin]

26. Incorrect

A NICS background check is required when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. There is no requirement for a background check in a private citizen transaction.

[SteveM]

27. The NICS bg test is designed to keep felons and adjudicated mental incompetents...

from obtaining firearms, much as such a record can curtail one's right to vote. I don't object to bg checks like this, but I don't think they do much good because the states are remiss in reporting felony convictions and mental competency hearings to the feds, even when they are supplied millions of dollars for which to do so. An example of another law passed, but not enforced.

Please note that these bg tests do not constitute a permanent record, akin to registration in that the government knows who has guns. I and most 2A defenders do NOT want registration for merely owning a firearm, a right protected by the Second.

What "gun club" do you belong to? I don't know of one which requires a NICS test.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

29. Thanks for proving you have nothing but insults, and no way to rebut my point. nt

[ThatPoetGuy]

37. Odd moderation.

I did rebut your point. Your point is false. Blatantly, absurdly false. It has no relationship with the truth other than to be in opposition to it.

You claimed the Sullivan Act "was passed explicitly for the purpose of making sure that immigrants weren't allowed to own weapons." This is simply not true.

In 1910, New York's mayor, Bill Gaynor, was shot. The shooting got people talking about guns. New York passed the Sullivan Act in 1911, in response to the mayor's shooting and to the rise in gun-related crimes.

Historical revisionists have tried to draw a connection between the xenophobic rhetoric of 1911 and the bill's passage, but the connection is false. If you can show me an opinion piece from 1911 that includes xenophobia and guns, I can show you an opinion piece from 1911 that includes xenophobia and whiskey, xenophobia and dogs, xenophobia and paper-making, and so on. Whoever dragged up that NYT article had a deliberate intent to deceive people into conflating racism with sane positions on gun ownership.

Again, your claim that the Sullivan Act "was passed explicitly for the purpose of making sure that immigrants weren't allowed to own weapons" is false. It was neither explicit nor implicit; the Sullivan Act was supported by xenophobes and opposed by xenophobes.

As for "no way to rebut point," um, yeah. Your point was false, completely, totally, undeniably, utterly false, but that won't change your mind for a second, will it? You're going to go on trying to insinuate that people who support a sane stance on the firearms issues must be racists. Which is what your real point was, wasn't it?

[baldguy]

62. Here in NY, my immigrant grandfather & immigrant father BOTH had gun licenses.

And my grandfather fought in WWI - with the German army.

Maybe you should check your assertions before you present them as fact.

[Lance_Boyle]

33. Requiring a license to excercise a Constitutionally-protected individual right

is an infringement upon that right.

How would a requirement for a free speech or free association permit strike you?

[safeinOhio]

88. You need to register to vote. n/t

[No Elephants]

116. Where in the U.S. Cons. is your right to vote?

[safeinOhio]

170. Article 2 Section 1.

is a good start.

The 12th Amendment spells it out also.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President,"

Also spelled out in the 14th Amendment, Section 2.

I would guess your right to vote is as clear as your individual right to own a handgun.

[PSzymeczek]

97. People need to get permits

for parades and gatherings in most cities.

[No Elephants]

115. LOL, there are MANY such requirements on free speech AND free asso-

ciation. And freedom of religion. And the right to assemble and petition.

And many of those have been held constitutional, IOW, perfect appropriate and lawful exercises of the police powers of state and federal government to protect public health, safety, etc.

[No Elephants]

108. Agree, but 2nd amend. says "keep and bear arms." It says nothing about

acquiring or owning guns.

[No Elephants]

73. No amendment for falling in love or having children, either.

Your kind of argument is the reason the Framers left individual rights out of the Constituton originally.

See also, Reply 74.


Any links to exact words of Tribe and Dershowitz, in context? Or, are you taking some partisan's word about Tribe and Dershowitz?

[SteveM]

19. Right, barbers are protected by Amendment... uh... which one?.... hm..nt

[ThatPoetGuy]

11. "Abominations"?

Firearms licensing, how horrific!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just chose too strong a word, because if you actually consider the licensing of firearms to be an "abomination," you would need some serious therapy.

Rape is an abomination; torture and genocide are abominations. Keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill? Not so much.

[SteveM]

30. You should insist on your state forwarding mental competency hearings...

to the feds. They do a poor job of it now.

I do not support firearms licensing, though states may do so for concealed-carry outside of one's home.

What proposals do you suggest which will effectively "keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill," keeping in mind that all Americans have 5th Amendment protections?

[ThatPoetGuy]

36. I would be happy to discuss this...

on a less heated thread.

I know it sounds like I'm dodging the issue, but this is personal. I have a mentally ill family member, and I've cared for him my whole adult life. He's been arrested more than once, wandering around town, doing strange things -- breaking windows, accosting people, etc. I live in terror that he will someday get his hands on a gun during one of those episodes.

I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend to. In his sane moments, he'd be willing to sign a sheet of paper that says, "never sell me a gun or give me a gun" -- but it wouldn't matter, because that sheet of paper would be unenforceable.

In a general, political basis, it's unacceptable to declare such notions "abominations" like rape and genocide. It shuts down any possible conversation.

[SteveM]

45. I see your point...

Mental illness affects many families, including mine. The point is, since the early 1960s, the mentally ill have been protected by the "due process" clause of the 5th, so that they may not be locked up "for their own good," something "normal" folks don't have to worry about. I know what you mean. I can think of an instance where one individual threatened another with a gun, yet the family could not get redress (to keep him from re-arming) because such would have required institutionalization and all the procedures pertaining to that. No one wanted to go through that.To this day, he still has guns, but has shown no intent to use them beyond hunting.

I wouldn't have used "abominations," but I have used the expression "war on guns" and been as vociferously condemned. Most folks who wanted gun-control didn't like or want me to use an expression which sounds like the jargon of culture war and prohibition, yet my description was and is apt. Maybe they just didn't want to recognize that the war was lost.

I think you are right about the unenforceable nature of even properly executed mental health findings.

[bowens43]

14. well, you're wrong. So think again. nt

[TheWraith]

17. Stirring retort, really. nt

[NickB79]

40. I'm fairly certain they were referring to an FFL that allows a person to be a gun dealer

FFL = Federal Firearms License. Any legal gun dealer, gun shop owner or gunsmith in the US has one. That would be the only license that would relate to gun ownership in Arizona; you don't need a license to own a gun or carry a concealed handgun in AZ.

As such, he can still legally own plenty of guns and ammo. He just can't sell them as part of a business transaction.

[No Elephants]

89. Link to SCOTUS case holding gun licenses un-Constitutional, Lance?

[sudopod]

103. LOL u mad? :D nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Good for you, Arlington.

Better to nip this in the bud.

[savalez]

9. exactly.

The stuff that knucklehead said sounds absolutely threatening to me. "just target the politicians and their staff," what a nut job.

[TheWraith]

16. While I seriously doubt that this guy is dangerous, I can't fault the police too much.

This does strike me as being a little bit jumpy, particularly since actual would-be murderers don't tend to announce themselves. But it's natural to exercise caution in such a state of high concern as we have at the moment.

[tooeyeten]

77. you can't

scream "fire" in a packed room, either, without consequences.

[closeupready]

21. I have no problem with this one.

K&R

[applegrove]

39. That is the way to do it.

[DeSwiss]

47. K&R

“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

His blog comments are not meant to be parody, nor could they be confused for comedic material either as far as I could see.


- Our freedoms carry with them the responsibility for their use........

[FailureToCommunicate]

49. Thanks Captain Bongiorno.

More dog whistles.
Good catch.

[derby378]

50. Convincting this man of a felony, or even of certain misdemeanors...

...would be a thoroughly legal (and Constitutional) way of barring this man access to firearms for a long time, if not forever.

I think that should be pursued rather than turning gun ownership into a mere privilege.

[james0tucson]

52. yeah, that's something to lose a license for

Sure, this is exactly the kind of thing that you're supposed to learn NOT TO DO when you take those classes to get your license.

[fascisthunter]

63. Good!

[Politicub]

65. Echoing the sentiment of others - Good.

[tooeyeten]

75. so what about

Angle and Palin, and their language and "crosshairs"?

[alp227]

81. Good pre-emptive action before he acted on his impluses n/t

[No Elephants]

157. Or someone else acts on the blogger's urging. We don't need to give

nutters ideas.

[James48]

82. Open secrets.org says- he's a political donor.

Travis Corcoran gsve $500 to Libertarian Candidate for governor Carla Howell in October, 2010.



http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Corcoran%2C+travis&stateTravis Corcoran =&zip=&employ=&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=x3r3w&submit=Submit

[Initech]

90. The best, and worst thing about the internet is assholes like this get exposed.

[pasto76]

91. Good! Dude is free to say whatever he wants, but there are consequences

a grown up would realize that.


when we were training to invade Iraq, dude in my squad would always answer "ahh, just shoot 'em". This in response to any question about any circumstance. Dude was clearly not taking this seriously, so few of us had a sit down.

"You are looking at the first 4 witnesses to testify in your court martial for murder if you shoot anyone outside rules of engagement"
dude was all butthurt about it for a minute. I told him, "we're soldiers, not murderers. We have rules, and it is my job to enforce them."

Dude was still painfully stupid after that, but at least he stopped talking that bullshit.

sgt pasto

[No Elephants]

158. Enjoyable and apt post. Thanks.

[Canuckistanian]

92. You can LOSE a Gun License?

I thought one was issued along with every birth certificate in America.

Of course, I may be wrong.

[madinmaryland]

94. What about gun licenses in Hawaii? Will they be questioned by Orly Taits??

Gunners vs. gun-thumpers!!

:D

[lonestarnot]

107. Good.

[slackmaster]

131. No sympathy for a Dumbass who knew the rules and broke them

:nuke:

[X_Digger]

133. +1 n/t

[No Elephants]

165. So, 100+ plus posts later and no mention of what the Mass. law actually says?

RELEVANT facts and law will only confuse us, I guess.



P.S. I LOVE Massachusetts laws. First state to reognize gay marriage, sensible gun regulation, equal legal rights for all--What's not to love?

January weather this year, on the other hand, could be better.

[Youth Uprising]

169. Sick bastards!

These people are sick. How can the right possibly claim that Jared Lee Loughner was a liberal? How can they claim that their violent rhetoric had nothing to do with this? If anything, comments like the ones that asshole made vindicate what liberals have been saying all along.






We have right-wingers who are actually celebrating the deaths of six innocent people, including a little girl, and are actively encouraging more violence, and the right has the audacity to shift blame from themselves to us for all this? These people are despicable. It's time to drop the false equivalency and call them out on their bullshit.


THIS is why I support gun control. I do NOT trust these people with guns.

[freshwest]

185. Thanks, Youth Uprising.

Your evidence needs to be posted every time they claim an equivalency. It is the Right that thrives on this violent rhetoric.

What do they take people for? Unseeing, un-hearing, unthinking?

Unconscious? No, that's their gig, listening to Fox nonstop.

The very least they can do is acknowledge they've got some loonies in their ranks. Their adamant denial that they weren't the ones with their finger on the trigger in each specific instance when their own words are cited by the shooters, speaks volumes about what they would do if they thought they'd get away with it.

If the ones who spurred this kind of hatred and intolerance of other Americans would stop defending their divisive ideology for just one moment, realize that we are all part of a whole, this would lead to a more civil and democratic debate on many things.

By part of a whole I don't mean a collective that mindlessly does what they envision Marx to have meant or something like the Borg. Just realizing they are not the rugged individualists they portray themselves to be, as long as they reap the benefits of others. Even if they refuse to acknowledge what those who believed in was for 'all,' they certainly do.

Instead of making sensible debate and convincing others with the correctness of their ideology with persuasion, they proclaim they are taking up arms against fellow Americans for daring to have different opinions and anything else that doesn't fit their narrow views on how people should live.

No, they aren't getting away with this. Not in my lifetime, and I predict, not in anyone else's here.

[Enthusiast]

178. Incitement to violence. nt

[Quantess]

220. They are coming out of the woodwork.